"Family or household member"; clarifies definition.
Summary
HB1852 amends Virginia Code § 16.1-228, which contains definitions used in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Law. The bill’s stated focus is to clarify the definition of “family or household member,” and the text revises that definition to expressly include a legal custodian of a juvenile. The definition already covers spouses, former spouses, certain relatives, co-parents, cohabitants, and children of cohabitants; this bill adds legal custodians to that list.
Because the definition of “family or household member” is used in the family abuse provisions of the juvenile and domestic relations court statutes, the change would affect who may be treated as a qualifying household or family relationship in domestic violence-related proceedings and related court processes. The bill also leaves in place the broader statutory framework governing abuse, neglect, custody, and juvenile court jurisdiction, and it includes a fiscal note stating the act may increase periods of imprisonment or juvenile commitment, with a minimum fiscal impact assigned because the exact amount cannot be determined.
Impact
The bill would amend a key definitional section in Title 16.1, expanding the statutory category of “family or household member” to include a legal custodian of a juvenile. That change would likely affect how courts, law enforcement, and child welfare actors apply Virginia’s family abuse and related juvenile court provisions, particularly in cases involving juveniles under the care of a custodian who is not a parent. The bill does not create a new offense or cause of action, but it changes the scope of an existing term used across domestic relations and juvenile proceedings.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, there is no committee transcript or vote history showing debate, support, or opposition, and the bill appears to have been introduced and referred without recorded action in the provided materials. The caption indicates the measure is intended as a clarification, suggesting a technical or definitional purpose rather than a major policy overhaul. Overall sentiment cannot be reliably gauged from the available context, but the bill’s framing suggests a narrow, administrative adjustment.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the practical effect of adding legal custodians to the definition of “family or household member.” Supporters would likely view this as a clarifying change that aligns the statute with modern caregiving arrangements and ensures juveniles and custodians are covered in family abuse-related proceedings. Opponents, if any, might question whether the expansion could broaden the reach of domestic violence or protective-order-related statutes beyond traditional family relationships, but no explicit objections are recorded in the provided context. The fiscal note also flags a possible increase in imprisonment or juvenile commitment, though the bill text itself does not specify a new penalty provision.